Junaid And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1389 of 2026
Junaid and another
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Rashid, Mohd Asif,
Subir Lal, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 42
HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Subir
Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a
writ in the nature of habeas corpus. He has been held in custody in FIR
Crime No.650 of 2026 under Sections 336 (3), 338, 340(2) of the BNS
(corresponding Sections are 467, 468, 471 IPC), Police Station Quarsi,
District Aligarh. 
3. The petitioner was taken allegedly into custody on 06.08.2026 at 3:00
a.m. and held at Police Chowki Jamalpur, District Aligarh. It is the case
of the petitioner that the details have not been furnished in the arrest
memo which would otherewise have been in compliance of the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2
HABC No. - 1389 of 2026
4. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn
attention of this Court to the arrest memo which has been filed along
with rejoinder affidavit which reflects that the reasons for arrest "
मुकदमा
". Copy of the arrest memo is reproduced hereinbelow:
उपरोक्तमें

3
HABC No. - 1389 of 2026

4
HABC No. - 1389 of 2026

5
HABC No. - 1389 of 2026
5. The grounds of arrest are perfunctory. However, in the course of the
arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has disclosed an
offence against the Court itself by the State.

6
HABC No. - 1389 of 2026
6. Counter affidavit filed by the State gives a different arrest memo
which is reproduced hereinbelow:

7
HABC No. - 1389 of 2026

8
HABC No. - 1389 of 2026

9
HABC No. - 1389 of 2026
7. Here, Item No.12 shows that there has been addition, which has been
made by the Investigating Officer of this case after the arrest memo was
given to the petitioner and also the arrest memo that was placed before
the remand Magistrate at the time of remand. Similar fabrication has
been made by altering Item No.13, wherein the investigating officer has
given the grounds of arrest that the petitioner has fabricated valuable
security and on the basis of that, he defrauded people. It is necessary to
mention here that in the original arrest memo, this was never entered into

10
HABC No. - 1389 of 2026
by the I.O. and in order to perfect the arrest memo, perhaps after the
habeas corpus petition was filed before this Court, by fabricating entries
in Item Nos.12 and 13 of the second page of the arrest memo, which
clearly reflect that fabricated document was placed before this Court
along with the counter affidavit.
8. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has
filed a rejoinder affidavit, in which he has filed a certified copy of the
arrest memo that was placed before the remand Judge, which is identical
to the copy of the arrest memo given to the corpus. The certified copy
reflects that the unfabricated original document that was placed before
the Magistrate at the time of the remand. Thus, it is clear that the
fabrication in the said document has been done by the police on a date
after the remand proceedings and perhaps after the habeas corpus
petition was filed. In the counter affidavit also, the existence of CCTV
cameras at the Chowki has been denied, whereas the colour photographs
annexed along with the rejoinder affidavit at pages- 26 and 27, clearly
show the CCTV cameras on the gate at the entrance to the Chowki.
Thus, the police have indulged in fabrication of the arrest memo and
perjury before this Court.
9. However, the Court feels that the blame does not lie with the officer
who has affirmed the affidavit as it states that it was based upon the
information received by him and believe to be true and upon perusal of
the record of the case. The deponent of the counter affidavit is not the
Investigating Officer in this case and has nothing to do with the case. As
regards the documents that he has perused, the same may have been the

11
HABC No. - 1389 of 2026
one already fabricated by the Investigating Officer. The Court takes
serious note of the offence committed by the police before this Court.
10. Thus, the present petition is allowed on the grounds of deficiency in
disclosing the grounds of arrest, which is perfunctory and inadequate for
the petitioner to file a bail application. The petitioner shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case, without prejudice to re-arrest
him, subject to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in  Jaskaran Jeet
Singh Deol Vs. State of Punjab, 2026 INSC 1022 .
11. As regards the offence committed by the police before this Court,
this Court considers it necessary to direct the Registrar General of this
Court to proceed under Section 379 of BNSS for cases mentioned in
Section 215 of BNSS, as the offence has been committed in a judicial
proceeding. After the inquiry, if the Registrar General is satisfied that
prima facie, an offence relating to fabrication of documents and perjury
has been committed before this Court, on the basis of perusal of the
documents/records of this case, in such an eventuality, he shall do the
needful and file a case before the Court of competent jurisdiction against
those found prima facie involved in the offence.

October 14, 2026
rkg/Noman
(Achal Sachdev,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad